W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [css3-images] Color as an image type

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:34:22 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimfgCdMo1+Q7RD_-NghaV_tYOU1o4vcGA6MEG=c@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:50 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 13:14 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> The latter may be sufficient to pronounce this "not a problem", but
>> the extra function is just kind of gratuitous, especially if you're
>> already using one of the color functions - "image(rgba(0,0,0,.5))"
>> looks uglier than necessary.
> shouldn't anything that claims to be making an image (like image() here) be able to provide all its characteristics, including its dimensions?  Isn't this one of the ways an image constructor differs from a color constructor?

Images don't always have dimensions.  They can have any, all, or none
of an intrinsic width, height, or aspect-ratio.  And that's okay.
Gradients don't have any dimensions, and SVG can have any of the valid

Imo, colors most naturally convert into a dimensionless image.

Received on Monday, 29 November 2010 22:35:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:41 UTC